Posted on 07/08/2005 2:59:50 PM PDT by summer
LARGO - In what could be a final chapter in the legal saga of Terri Schiavo, Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney Bernie McCabe says he could find no evidence that Michael Schiavo caused his wife's collapse 15 years ago.
In a June 30 letter to Gov. Jeb Bush, McCabe suggested ending the state's inquiry into the case.
Bush responded Thursday in a two-sentence letter to McCabe: "Based on your conclusions, I will follow your recommendation that the inquiry by the state be closed."
Bush asked McCabe last month to investigate Schiavo's collapse on the morning of Feb. 25, 1990. He cited questions left unanswered by an autopsy and inconsistent statements from Michael Schiavo about the time he found his wife on the floor of their apartment.
McCabe appointed two of his most seasoned prosecutors to review the evidence. They found nothing to indicate Michael Schiavo hurt his wife....
(Excerpt) Read more at sptimes.com ...
I would forgive him for this. But if there was to be any divorce, it should be initiated by my husband, not by a parent. And if he sought divorce under such circumstances, I would forgive him.
That is me, how I feel and believe. The marriage between my husband and myself is a matter between us and God, and no one else should meddle in it.
Yes, you said that and more at the beginning of the thread. But, others on this thread seemed to disagree with your view. "Meddle," and "caring for the disabled," are two entirely different concepts to some people. But, not to others. I realize that. Thanks for your post.
They're Michael's in-laws. Under your scenario, if I get sick and my parents don't like my husband, then my parents would have the right to obtain a divorce for me even if I wouldn't want one myself. That's why many so-called "conservatives" aren't really conservative. They would be more than willing to interfere in the relationship of husband wife if it suited their purposes.
I meant to type: would have NO bearing on you at all...
With the Rathergate memos, at the least, we saw many main stream people, main stream media people repeating a lie. The forged Air Guard Memos were a fraud, a lie. The narrative made up for them a slander, also a lie.
Yet many high galoots in the sat in their anchor chairs and editor's desks and made the lie alive to many by mere repetition of it. They hold themselves blameless. They were just reporting the *important* story!
Well, the story wasn't important, yet they dearly wanted that kind of slanderous lie out there -- so they made it important.
They blew it up from a subheadline to the major daily lead.
Is repeating a lie a new lie of itself?
He had the legal authority and so did his brother. Any person can stop a murder.
"I think their right to care for her was superior to him pulling the plug, without any written from Terri."
Let me ask you your thoughts on this..... Michael has a girlfriend and two new kids, but does NOT want to pull the plug. The parents think that because of the infidelity, they should divorce, and they say the Terri would not want to live like that and intend to pull the pull.
Do you still think the parents should be able to force a divorce ? How does your new "right" handle this situation ?
If that is true then why do you oppose State legislation that would take away a doctors right to assume I would want to die if it is not in writing? There should NEVER be anyone who is allowed that right. Not the government or any doctor, They are not God.
Did you even read the proposed legislation in post#149? You did not comment on it. It covers right to die AND right to live.
If you think this thing about doctors assuming that people would want to die is a joke just look at the UK. There is a man who has written down that he wants to live if he is incapacitated. He is of sound mind right now and he is fighting for his right to keep the doctors from killing him later. This is what we will get to if we continue on the current path. Rationing of medical care by doctors with government approval. Talk about your leftist government interference. Is that the kind of Republic that we can be proud to defend?
Leslie Burke wants to live; the National Health Service has a second opinion
London—The most important bioethics litigation in the world today involves a 45-year-old Englishman, Leslie Burke. He isn’t asking for very much. Burke has a progressive neurological disease that may one day deprive him of the ability to swallow. If that happens, Burke wants to receive food and water through a tube. Knowing that Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) rations care, Burke sued to ensure that he will not be forced to endure death by dehydration against his wishes.
*snip*
"..Burke, who is fully competent, worries that his wishes will be ignored precisely because he wants food and water even if he becomes totally paralyzed. Receiving food and water when it is wanted certainly seems the least each of us should be able to expect. But, it turns out, whether Burke lives or dies by dehydration may not be up to him. According to National Health Service treatment guidelines, doctors, rather than patients or their families, have the final say about providing or withholding care.
no flames from those who care about life...
The inconsistency that needs to be addressed from the Schiavo case is that Schiavo had limited guardianship because his interests were in question by the court but the court still leaned heavily on his testimony to make their final judgment.
In these special circumstance cases extra consideration should be given to outside testimony.
...which is totally contrary to what I have been advocating. Therefore, I fail to see why you bring up this straw man, except to confuse the issue or cause discord.
As for the proposal you posted, of course I read it, and I see that it would step in and create a presumption rather than allow a specific-case decision by those closest to the patient. Of course, I don't like the way things stand now, either (with no civilized means of relief), but I don't want to make it worse!
So it's all about "life at all costs," not respect for the individual's wishes or sanctity of marriage, huh?
Didn't you read what I said??? I said the spouse should be given guardianship in most cases. What is your problem? And why did you not answer my previous post to you about respecting my right to life as I respect your right to die, huh?
It already is worse...the courts have already stepped in and now the AMA is making it's move. We can't stop the roll toward presumption of death without legislation so why not stop it in it's tracks while at the same time preserving the right of those who would choose to die.
Clearly, there was no intention to lie. Summer transmitted the misleading subtitle as best he could given the limitations. I would cool it regarding the poster and, indeed, the subtitle chosen by the paper was misleading and a lie.
Just as welfare can have the unintended consequence of destroying family stucture, so can making laws that supplant the husband in a marriage with the parents.
Caring for the disabled is a noble goal and concern. As I am disabled and may become more so, I am glad people are concerned about those who are in worse shape than I am.
You have to look at what you are trying to do square on.
You are either
1} trying to prevent anyone from doing anything that would hasten the end of life for a disabled person (regardless of whether it is the wish of the disabled) or
2} you are trying to prevent a husband from doing anything to hasten the end of life for a disabled wife if her parents disagree or
3}you are trying to make it mandatory to extend a disabled life for as long as humanly possible or
4} you are trying to prevent a husband from hastening the end of life only when there are circumstances that make you suspicious that he may have had something to do with disabling the person in the first place.
Summer, I have great respect for your concerns in this area. But don't politely tell me to shut up and go away when you are proposing laws that may affect me.
I would appreciate your responding to what exactly you are trying to accomplish, and then I might be able to assist this discussion by proposing a way to accomplish that that doesn't mandate divorce as the only means to get there.
With every good wish,
Patty
Then it is okay to repeat a lie, unremarked?
Yet some sancity is even greater than that marriage sancity -- the sancity of life itself being one of those few. You may not take a life, you may not contract to have your own destroyed, taken from you.
Don't pervert what the term "sancity" means.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.